Reform Judaism and Darwin: How Engaging with Evolutionary Theory Shaped American Jewish Religion

138 Pages·2019·0.842 MB·English

by  Daniel Langton

Daniel R. Langton
Reform Judaism and Darwin
Studia Judaica
Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums
Begründet von
Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich
Herausgegeben von
Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert,
Elisabeth Hollender, Alexander Samely
und Irene Zwiep
Band 111
Daniel R. Langton
Reform Judaism
and Darwin
How Engaging with Evolutionary Theory Shaped
American Jewish Religion
ISBN 978-3-11-065913-9
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-066411-9
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-066122-4
ISSN 0585-5306
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019944065
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Contents
I Introduction 1
II Evolution ‘in the air’: Scientific, Philosophical and Christian
Influences on Reform Jewish Engagement with Evolutionary
Theory 12
III Isaac Mayer Wise: The Cosmic God and an Evolving Cosmos 28
Critique of Evolutionary Science 29
The Cosmic God and Evolution 33
The Development of Self-consciousness 42
History, the Will, and the Problem of Evil and Suffering 46
A New Philosophy asan Alternative to Science or Religion? 49
Summary 50
IV Aaron Hahn: The Divine Design Principle of the Universe 52
Evolutionary Theory as a Reasonable Hypothesis 53
Universal Evolution, a Reconceived Divinity, and Eugenics 56
Summary 58
V Kaufmann Kohler: The Unfolding of Divine Life 60
Religion and Science 61
Judaism, Biblical Criticism and Morality 65
A Systematic Evolutionary Theology 69
Summary 75
VI Emil G. Hirsch: The Divine Soul of an Evolving Universe 76
A Paradigm for the History of Religion 77
Defending Evolution from a Theistic Perspective 79
A Panentheistic Account of the Moral Purpose of Evolution to
Confound the Materialists 81
Summary 87
VII Joseph Krauskopf: The Divine Natural Law of Evolution 89
Science and Judaism 92
A Panentheistic Account of Evolution 94
Evolutionary Foundations for Morality 98
VI Contents
Evolutionary Progressand its Consequences for Biblical
Authority 101
Summary 103
VIII Conclusion 105
Appendix: Evolution and Progressive Judaism in Britain 112
Claude Montefiore 114
Morris Joseph 118
Bibliography 123
Index 129
I Introduction
Among historians of Reform Judaism,which emerged in Germany in the 1810s,
which divided British religious Jews from the 1840s, and which came to domi-
nate North American Jewry by the 1880s,there is a general absence of interest
in Darwin’s theory of evolution. The idea of evolution more generally had
beenusedbyscholarsofreligion–andbyleadingJewishreformers–todescribe
mankind’sreligiousprogressionfromwellbeforeDarwin’sday.ThefatherofGer-
man Reform Judaism, Abraham Geiger,presentedthe emergence of the modern
formsofJudaismasaninevitable,evolutionarydevelopmentfromthe1830s;ac-
cordingtohisview,historyrevealedhoweachgenerationofJewshadgivenfresh
meaning to the traditional liturgy and practices that had sought to express the
coreethical-monotheistic aspects ofJudaism,leading to aperpetualstateof or-
ganic change as the Jewish religion adapted itself to local circumstances and
cultures. And similar arguments have been repeated ever since by progressive
Jewishthinkers.ButwhereasGeigermadehisargumentwithoutreferencetobio-
logicalevolution(infact,herejectednotonlyDarwin’stheorynaturalselection
but even the phenomenon of the transmutation of species itself),¹ many other
ReformJewspreferredtomakeanexplicitconnectiontobiologicalevolution,es-
pecially in the U.S.While the language of evolutionism has notgone unnoticed
byhistoriansofReformJudaism,thetendencyhasbeentofocusonthepolitical
ambitions of assimilationist lay Jews, the theological concerns of the religious
leaders and intellectual pioneers of Reform, and the critique and emulation of
the surrounding Christian societies in terms of theology and practices, all at
the expense of the reformers’ actual engagement with evolutionary science.
The standard work on the history of Reform Judaism, Response to Modernity
 InastudyofthehistoricaldevelopmentofJudaism,Geigerstatedthat‘Naturepresentsherself
inagreatvarietyofbeings,accordingtoclassesandspecies,which,whiledistinctfromeach
other, work together, and for each other, but are not transformed one into the other… The
samePowerwhichatthebeginningcreatedthemasisasserted[byModernNaturalPhilosophy],
oneoutoftheother,shouldnecessarilycontinuethesameprocess,shouldeventhisdaycreate
ananimalfromaplantandcontinuouslyperfectittoitshigherorganism.Butthepresentworld
presentsnosuchprocess;onthecontrary,everyspeciesremainswithinitsfixedlimits,itcon-
tinuallybegetsindividualbeingsofitsownkind,butisnotchangedintoanother.Henceitisnot
apromoting,butorderingpowerthatcreatesandpreserveseverykindinitsindividuality;not
onethatisblindlyrushingforwardwithoutstopping,butwhichpreservesnatureasawhole,
composedofdifferentparts,sothatitisunchangeablebothasawholeandinitsvariety.’Abra-
hamGeiger,JudaismandItsHistory,trans.MauriceMayer(London:Trübner&Co,1866),8–9.
Germanoriginal:DasJudenthumundseineGeschichte(Breslau:Schletter,1864).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110664119-001
2 I Introduction
(1988) by Michael Meyer, is typical in that it barely refers to the subject.² Even
when the question of the influence of Darwin on U.S. Reform ideology have
beenaddressed,theconsensushasbeenthatitremainsperipheraltothedevel-
opment of the movement.Thus, according to Marc Swetlitz, Reform Jewish the-
ologyremainedessentiallyuntouched because evolutionarytheory was primar-
ilyusedtojustifyalreadyexistingviews,and,accordingtoMichaelShaiCherry,
any apparent theological innovations could traced back to older Jewish tradi-
tions and might not therefore be regarded as innovative.³ From these perspec-
tives,evolutionarytheorymainlyfunctionedasananalogy,providingcredibility
and authority for the radical Reform agenda, but did not in itself contribute
significantlytothegenerationofReformthought.Thisstudywillarguethat,con-
trarytosuchclaims,thepassionateengagementwithevolutionarytheoryfound
inmanyprogressiveJewishwritingsafterthepublicationofTheOriginofSpecies
(1859) is suggestive of a much more important role within North American Re-
formideology.Atleastinthecaseoftheprogressivesandradicals,itwillbear-
gued that evolutionary theory was utilized as the key explanatory framework.
WithintheU.S.ReformJewishmovement,thefirsttorespondandstakeout
theirpositionweretheopponentsofevolution,writinginthe1860s.⁴Supporters
ofthetheorytendedtoexpresstheirviewsonlyfromtheearly1870s,withahigh-
point in the second half of the 1880s and general acceptance reached by the
1890s,andwithpositiveengagementwithevolutioncontinuingonintothetwen-
 Meyerdevotesonepagetothesubjectinachapteron‘ClassicalReformJudaism’;hisindex
includesonlyfourreferencesto‘Darwinism’andfourfor‘evolution,religiousandspiritual’.Mi-
chaelA.Meyer,ResponsetoModernity:AHistoryoftheReformMovementinJudaism,Studiesin
JewishHistory(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1988),274.
 WewillreturntotheargumentsofSwetlitzandCherryintheConclusion.Theirworksinclude:
MarcSwetlitz,“ResponsesofAmericanReformRabbistoEvolutionaryTheory,1864–1888,”in
TheInteractionofScientificandJewishCulturesinModernTimes,ed.YakovM.RabkinandIra
Robinson(Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellenPress,1995),MarcSwetlitz,“AmericanJewishRespons-
es to Darwin and Evolutionary Theory,1860–1890,” in Disseminating Darwinism:The Role of
Place, Race, Religion, and Gender, ed. Ronald L. Numbers and John Stenhouse (Cambridge;
NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999),MarcSwetlitz,“ResponsestoEvolutionbyReform,
Conservative,andReconstructionistRabbisinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica,”inJewishTradition
andtheChallengeofDarwinism,ed.GeoffreyN.CantorandMarcSwetlitz(Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress,2006),MichaelShaiCherry,“Creation,EvolutionandJewishThought”(Doctoral
thesis,BrandeisUniversity,2001),andShaiCherry,“ThreeTwentieth-CenturyJewishResponses
toEvolutionaryTheory,”Aleph3(2003).
 For anoverviewofearlyReformopponents,includingAbrahamGeiger(1810–1874),David
Einhorn(1809–1879),AdolphKessler(1833–1915)andAdolphKohut(1842–1894),seeSwetlitz,
“ResponsesofAmericanReformRabbistoEvolutionaryTheory,1864–1888,”104.
I Introduction 3
tieth-century.⁵ Four or five Reform thinkers can be presented as central to the
story, namely, Isaac Mayer Wise, Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch and Joseph
Krauskopf, along with the less influential Aaron Hahn.The moderate reformer,
Wise,was a special case, for while he offered an evolutionary account and en-
gaged seriously with vital post-Darwinian questions about the relationship be-
tween human and animal minds,the origins of conscience, and the moral and
teleologicalimplications,neverthelesshewasextremelyhostiletotheDarwinian
mechanism of natural selection itself.The other more radical reformers tended
to downplay their differences with Darwin and to augment or adapt Darwinian
theory in their theological constructions, rather than to oppose it outright with
an alternative evolutionary theory. In what follows, a close reading of the
worksofWise,Hahn,Kohler,Hirsch,andKrauskopfwillbeofferedtochallenge
theviewthatevolutioncanbesafelydiscountedintheintellectualhistoryofthe
development of classical Reform Judaism in North America. Reproducing the
views of these religious leaders at length is, rhetorically at least, the surest
 Forexample,manypublishedandunpublishedReformJewishsermonsonthesubjectofevo-
lution,withseveralwrittenasresponsestotheScopesTrialof1925,arelocatedattheAmerican
JewishArchivesinCincinnati,includingthosebyMauriceHarris(1859–1930),DavidPhilipson
(1862–1949), J. Leonard Levy (1865–1917), Samuel Goldenson (1878–1962), Samuel Cohon
(1888–1959), Israel Bettan (1889–1957), Ferdinand Isserman (1898–1972), and Levi Olan
(1903–1984).Aselectionofthesermontitlesinclude:MauriceHarris,EvolutionandReligion:
A New Year Discourse Preached at Temple Israel, New York (New York: Private publisher,
1925), David Philipson, “The Biblical Story of Creation,” (American Jewish Archive, n.d.),
DavidPhilipson,“Evolutionand Religion,” (AmericanJewishArchive,n.d.), David Philipson,
“Religion and Evolution,” (American Jewish Archive, n.d.), David Philipson, “The Biblical
Story of Creation and the Theory of Evolution,” (American Jewish Archive, n.d.), J. Leonard
Levy,EvolutionorRevolution:ASundayLecture,vol.10(Pittsburgh,PA:B.Callomon,1910),Sa-
muelGoldenson,EvolutionandReligion:ASermon(Pittsburgh,PA:RodefShalomCongregation,
1922),SamuelCohon,“EvolutionandtheDivineEvolver,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.),Sa-
muelCohon,“EvolutioninJudaism,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.),IsraelBettan,“CanWe
StillBelieveinProgress?,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.),IsraelBettan,“EvolutionandGod,”
(American Jewish Archives, n.d.), Israel Bettan, “Is Evolution True?,” (American Jewish Ar-
chives,n.d.),IsraelBettan,“NatureasTeacher,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.),IsraelBettan,
“War and HumanNature,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.), FerdinandIsserman,“Evolution
andReligion,”(AmericanJewishArchives,1923),FerdinandIsserman,“EvolutioninthePulpit
“(AmericanJewishArchives,1925),FerdinandIsserman,“BiblicalScience,”(AmericanJewish
Archives, 1930) Ferdinand Isserman, “Genesis and Evolution,” (American Jewish Archives,
1932),FerdinandIsserman,“OhLord,WhatIsMan?,”(AmericanJewishArchives,1932),Ferdi-
nand Isserman,“GenesisTeachesFaith, Not Science,” (American Jewish Archives,n.d.), Levi
Olan, “Charles Darwin: Evolution the New History,” (American Jewish Archives, 1967), Levi
Olan,“CharlesDarwin:TheManWhoChallengedGenesis,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.),
LeviOlan,“TheNatureofMan,”(AmericanJewishArchives,n.d.).
4 I Introduction
way to convince the reader of the central importance of evolutionary theory to
them,evenifitmakesfor asomewhatinelegantpresentation.Itisnotasimple
argumenttomake,however,anditisseriouslycomplicatedbythechallengesof
anyattempttountanglethewaysinwhichvariousscientific,philosophicaland
ChristianideasandtheologiesinfluencedJewishthoughtatthatparticulartime
and place.
Such an attempt raises some general questions of methodology, since the
demonstration of the influence of any idea is often a real challenge for the his-
torianworkingwithideas.Howfarcanonespeakofcausality,thatis,ofanidea
having a determinate effect? Does an idea function in a different way, or find
its significance altered, having moved from one individual’s conceptual world
toanother’s?Canonesay withanydegreeofcertaintywhoisactuallyinfluenc-
ingorinspiringwhom?Isitaquestionofplagiarism,adaption,reinterpretation,
misinterpretation, or rejection? A related difficulty is the question of origin.
Should one view the idea as a logical consequence of previous ideas that
make its emergence almost inevitable, or are its origins, in effect, mysterious?
What exactly is meant by saying that an idea was already ‘in the air’, or that
it can take root or transform over time? How does one weigh the importance
of different streams or multiple sources of influence? In particular, how does
oneavoidthesinofparallelomania,thatis,themistakeofmisconstruingappa-
rent similarities and erroneously constructing parallels and analogies without
adequate justification?
Broadly speaking, three areas of historiographical methodology have
emerged that,while overlapping, feature distinct emphases in approaching the
kindsofquestionsraisedbysuchatopicofstudyasthisone.TheHistoryofSci-
ence approach assumes that science is an activity like other human activities
andthatanideacanbebestunderstoodasaproductofthesurroundingsociety
and culture and of the structural forces at work in those environments; for our
purposes, this means understanding the place of evolutionary theory in the
widerculturaldiscourseandinthecontextofthewiderReligion-Sciencedebate
inparticular,assessingtheimpactoftheemergenceanddevelopmentofReform
Jewishinstitutions,and identifyingthe culturalandpersonal channels ofinflu-
encebetweendifferentthinkers,whetherJewish,Christianorscientific.TheHis-
toryofIdeasapproachischaracterizedbyanattempttoabstractanideaordoc-
trine and to trace its morphology through time by such means as reducing the
ideaintoitsconstituentparts,assessinghowitrelatestootherideas,andexplor-
ing issues such as coherence;forour purposes,this means attempting to relate
aclusterofevolutionary-inspiredideasinReformJewishtheologytoeachother
andtracingtheshiftingformsofthewidespreadbeliefinalawofuniversalevo-
lution.IntellectualHistorytendstofocusontheinteriorworldoftheindividuals